Why only hydrogen is regarded as fuel of future and not other elements?

Question

I have basic idea of working of hydrogen fuel cell but why just hydrogen? Isn’t there any better or maybe cheaper alternative?
(I know it’s bit complex for but I would appreciate your answers)

In: 346

Answer 1

Hydrogen is only regarded as the fuel of the future by people who don’t understand how math works. Most people who actually have a deep understanding of physics and economics *do not* regard hydrogen as the fuel of the future. They understand that, absent economy-bankrupting government subsidies, hydrogen cannot replace fossil fuels.

However, they hydrogen myth is persistent because it’s people who benefit from the status quo lobby hard for hydrogen. Why? Because it’s a way to delay the transition to clean energy. Every dollar and research hour spent on H2, is a dollar that’s not going into something that actually can work.

Rant aside, your question is probably aimed at understanding why hydrogen in particular has the focus. Well, it’s because hydrogen, *by mass,* is the densest energy carrier around. Hydrogen can, theoretically, be created by running renewable electricity through water and splitting off the oxygen, creating a carbon neutral energy source. This hydrogen can then, theoretically, be distributed through pipelines and trucks just like oil and natural gas. It can, theoretically, be recombined with oxygen in a chemical reaction which creates heat and electricity in a fuel cell.

So, the promise is that it’s a drop-in replacement for everything we do today with natural gas and other fossil fuels. It’s sold to the rubes by telling them that “nothing has to change, except you’ll be putting liquid hydrogen into your F150 instead of gasoline.”

Notice, however, the heavy use of “theoretically”. Just because something is technically possible, *doesn’t mean it’s remotely practical*. I could theoretically replace my half hour car commute back and forth from work by spending and extra 6 hours per day walking, but it’s just not practical. Same with hydrogen. We *could* do all that with clean hydrogen, but we won’t because of how gosh darn inefficient (and thus expensive) each and every step along the way is.

This is where the greenwashers make their money. They deliberately muddy the waters. When carbon pollution is the topic, they talk about green hydrogen. When cost is the topic, they refer to fossil derived hydrogen. The general public doesn’t have the background or the interest to access follow along.